I agree. As long as the release is properly marked as Alpha quality and with a version number that indicates the same - 0.01 will do ;-) - everyone will know to not rely on this for major mission critical enterprise applications.
I'll get on testing as soon as I get these pesky clients off my back. EdB On Mon, Apr 14, 2014 at 7:17 AM, Alex Harui <aha...@adobe.com> wrote: > Everything you pointed out is a valid issue. The question is whether it > is a blocker for a 0.0.1 release. IMO, if the two packages can build > working examples and the binary kits can be installed and work in FB that > is good enough for this initial release. > > -Alex > > On 4/13/14 9:34 PM, "Justin Mclean" <jus...@classsoftware.com> wrote: > > >Hi, > > > >> I think compiler/commandline isn't intended to work from that folder. > >>It > >> gets copied into the "SDK". > > > >Even if it does It will still have the newline issue and this should be > >pointed out in the README or RELEASE_NOTES. I certainly expected them to > >work. > > > >> It's a good question as to how "self-sufficient" this kit needs to be > >>when > >> it is really intended as an upstream distribution for FlexJS. > > > >I'm reasonably sure people may use Flacon for stuff other than FlexJS eg > >as a replacement for the current mxml/compc compilers. > > > >> IMO, this kit is successful when its build script runs successfully > > > >Even if it has failures along the way and still reports success? > >Currently it a little hard to work out what success is ie are Java errors > >OK or failing tests OK? > > > >Thanks, > >Justin > > -- Ix Multimedia Software Jan Luykenstraat 27 3521 VB Utrecht T. 06-51952295 I. www.ixsoftware.nl
